Haha, you guys are both stupid.

A signing can be bad, regardless of team success. I'm sure the Cubs are both a) stoked to be in the WS and b) wishing they had used that money differently.

But, jtpsops, you act like everyone should have seen this Heyward collapse coming. Up until this year he was a great defensive outfielder with a slightly above average bat (117 OPS+ in 2016) and was a free agent heading into his age 26 year. He even received MVP votes last year. That's the profile of a player that is worth an investment. It just didn't work out this time (at least not yet).

EDIT: Though I would not have offered him $200m+.

Are you saying that the Cubs are in the WS because of Heyward's defense?

Posted by bad_luck on 10/27/2016 11:50:00 AM (view original):
Are you saying that the Cubs are in the WS because of Heyward's defense?

Argue Monkey joins the party!!!

Posted by bad_luck on 10/27/2016 11:50:00 AM (view original):
Are you saying that the Cubs are in the WS because of Heyward's defense?

Nope. Read the thread. I've said:
1. I didn't like the signing. Doubt I ever will.
2. The Cubs might have won in spite of the contract. Or maybe not.
3. The Cubs print money so it's not really problematic regardless of his production or lack thereof.
4. If the Cubs start saying "Because of our payroll situation, we can't sign FA", it's time to re-evaluate what the signing did to them.
5. I doubt anyone in the organization is saying "Damn, that Heyward signing is killing us" today.

And a few other things.

I just think it's a very stupid time to resurrect an argument over the Heyward signing when the Cubs are 1 of 2 teams capable of calling themselves "World Series winners." It's doubly stupid to say "How'd that signing work out for you!?!??"

Again, context is your friend, Mikey. I know how much you love to take partial quotes and spin them totally out of context, but it's just not reality chief.

The "how's that RF defense working out for them" was referring to people who said the contract was worth it because Heyward was an awesome defender in RF (which is like paying a pitcher extra because he has 6 pitches - who really cares, when all you need is 3 or 4?)

I know that implications are hard for you, as you so blatantly proved in the Jose Fernandez discussion thread, but at least try to work on your reading comprehension.

Context. is. your. friend. Don't fight it.

I just think it's a very stupid time to resurrect an argument over the Heyward signing when the Cubs are 1 of 2 teams capable of calling themselves "World Series winners." It's doubly stupid to say "How'd that signing work out for you!?!??"

One again, as BL just pointed out, it's possible for the Cubs to be good AND have signed a player to a ****** contract. Just like it was possible for the Yankees to be good with a crappy defensive SS. But you're making them dependent on each other.

"The Cubs are good, so clearly the contract is good."
"The Yankees are good, so clearly Jeter is a good defender."

False logic at its best.

I may be wrong, but I don't think Mike ever said the Yankees winning meant Jeter was a good defensive shortstop. What I think he said was "the Yankees were winning with Jeter at SS. Why change a successful strategy?

Posted by wylie715 on 10/27/2016 12:23:00 PM (view original):
I may be wrong, but I don't think Mike ever said the Yankees winning meant Jeter was a good defensive shortstop. What I think he said was "the Yankees were winning with Jeter at SS. Why change a successful strategy?

Right. And he's equating that to my argument, which is false.

My argument is not "Cubs would be better without Heyward." It's "Heyward's contract was awful."

He's comparing it to something totally irrelevant to create a false correlation.

I already explained the context of my comment, Mike_Luck23. I'm not going to engage your attempt to argue in circles. Go back and read the whole thread. It'll dawn on you.

You are JUST like BL. It's uncanny.

I thought PSBL was the dumbest person on earth. or maybe all3?

Posted by sjpoker on 10/27/2016 12:46:00 PM (view original):
I thought PSBL was the dumbest person on earth. or maybe all3?

Mike and BL are one and the same, so you'd have to add ol' ***** to the list.

jtpsops, all you have to do is say this:

"You know, you're right, the Cubs are awesome this year. They won 103 games and ran away with the division. They would have been fine with my Grandma playing right field. But, boy, that Heyward contract looks like a stinker. That's my point. I bet they wish they could get a redo on that decision, regardless of their success this year. I got a little fired up when I said 'how's that awesome RF defense working out for them?' I should have worded that differently."

I'm pretty sure you and Mike agree on the substance of your thought, just not the execution.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/27/2016 12:48:00 PM (view original):
jtpsops, all you have to do is say this:

"You know, you're right, the Cubs are awesome this year. They won 103 games and ran away with the division. They would have been fine with my Grandma playing right field. But, boy, that Heyward contract looks like a stinker. That's my point. I bet they wish they could get a redo on that decision, regardless of their success this year. I got a little fired up when I said 'how's that awesome RF defense working out for them?' I should have worded that differently."

I'm pretty sure you and Mike agree on the substance of your thought, just not the execution.

Mike already said he agreed with the basis of my position. Then he said if I'd waited until after the WS to bring it up, it wouldn't have been an issue. Which just proves he wanted something to argue about.

If Heyward's contract is ****** in a week or a month, it's ****** now. Mike just loves to argue to try and massage his inflated ego. It's what he does.

As for the RF comment, I already explained it...the inference was "how smart was it signing a guy solely for his OF defense?", directed at those who praised the deal solely for that reason. It had nothing to do with how his defense affected the Cubs ability to win. But as usual, Mike fails at reading comprehension and pounces on a chance to misrepresent a quote so he can start his usual bitchfest.

Posted by Jtpsops on 10/27/2016 12:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/27/2016 12:48:00 PM (view original):
jtpsops, all you have to do is say this:

"You know, you're right, the Cubs are awesome this year. They won 103 games and ran away with the division. They would have been fine with my Grandma playing right field. But, boy, that Heyward contract looks like a stinker. That's my point. I bet they wish they could get a redo on that decision, regardless of their success this year. I got a little fired up when I said 'how's that awesome RF defense working out for them?' I should have worded that differently."

I'm pretty sure you and Mike agree on the substance of your thought, just not the execution.

Mike already said he agreed with the basis of my position. Then he said if I'd waited until after the WS to bring it up, it wouldn't have been an issue. Which just proves he wanted something to argue about.

If Heyward's contract is ****** in a week or a month, it's ****** now. Mike just loves to argue to try and massage his inflated ego. It's what he does.

As for the RF comment, I already explained it...the inference was "how smart was it signing a guy solely for his OF defense?", directed at those who praised the deal solely for that reason. It had nothing to do with how his defense affected the Cubs ability to win. But as usual, Mike fails at reading comprehension and pounces on a chance to misrepresent a quote so he can start his usual bitchfest.

Oh hey, you misspelled, "yeah, you're right, this is a dumb argument. We don't even disagree."

Also, this place has been a little slow lately, I think mike has argument blue balls.

Sez the Argue Monkey.